Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the synergistic effects of chlorine substitution in sulfide electrolyte solid state batteries, discussing its potential for high energy and power densities as well as the mitigation of safety issues of traditional lithium-ion batteries. The article also discusses the role of partial substitution of sulfur by a halogen atom in stabilizing the high temperature phase, which increases Li-ion conductivity, and how higher amounts of halogen substitution can further increase conductivity values. Furthermore, it explains that a wide stability window is another important requirement for solid electrolyte, and how chlorine-rich argyrodites such as Li5PS4Cl2 and Li5.5PS4.5Cl1.5 can exhibit ionic conductivities as high as 10 mS cm−1 in cold pressed specimens.

The article is generally reliable and trustworthy, providing evidence from both theoretical computations and experimental tests to support its claims about chlorine substitution in sulfide electrolyte solid state batteries. It also acknowledges that there are certain limitations to these experiments, such as not having an adequate press when attaching the metal anode layer to the electrolyte layer or not having a sufficient stack pressure during battery tests, which could affect the voltage window results obtained from these experiments. Additionally, it provides insights on how taking into account the Li+ capacity effect can expand the voltage window closer to what was measured experimentally compared with simulations without considering this effect.

However, there are some points that could be explored further in order to make this article more reliable and trustworthy. For example, while it mentions that higher amounts of halogen substitution can increase conductivity values, it does not provide any evidence or data on how much higher these values are compared with lower amounts of halogen substitution or pure Li-argyrodite compositions such as Li7PS6 without any halogen atoms substituted for sulfur atoms. Additionally, while it mentions that a sufficient stack pressure is necessary to maximize the voltage window of sulfide electrolytes, it does not provide any details on what constitutes a “sufficient” stack pressure or what kind of impact different levels of stack pressure have on voltage windows results obtained from experiments or simulations. Finally, while it acknowledges certain limitations to these experiments such as not having an adequate press when attaching metal anode layers or not having a sufficient stack pressure during battery tests which could affect voltage windows results obtained from these experiments, it does not provide any suggestions on how these limitations could be addressed in future experiments or simulations in order to obtain more accurate results regarding voltage windows for sulfide electrolytes under different levels of stack pressure